Drumshanbo is a very hard act for me to follow and I am afraid that the parochialism of my views may be in some contrast to the distinguished contribution of my immediate predecessor. I will try to rectify this in some small way by addressing myself first to the subject of foreign affairs which is an area in which the House generally is very interested. One of the sad things during the year was that although we had a very wideranging debate on the necessity to establish a joint Oireachtas committee on foreign affairs under the official aegis of the Government and the Department of Foreign Affairs, this was turned down. We have in fact established such a committee, a committee of Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas which is up and functioning and which is in contact with the other foreign affairs committees of the various European Parliaments. I hope that this Government will not continue to prove niggardly in this regard and that if they lack the energy to provide this very necessary service to the Parliament, they will at least do the decent thing and provide some funding for the entrepreneurial efforts of Members of both Houses in establishing our own committee in an area in which everybody agrees it is important that we join all the other nations of Europe in having just such a committee. It is increasingly clear to those of us who participate in debates on foreign affairs that this committee would have a very necessary role. Even in its current limited existence it has a necessary role in trying to establish some degree of accountability to the Irish people in terms of foreign affairs.
There were debates during the year, for example, with a specific relationship to this debate about appropriations, because moneys were described as being one of the principal elements in decisions with regard to the establishment of diplomatic missions, and the full recognition of friendly states such as, for example, the state of Nicaragua. There was a debate in this House on the necessity for establishing full diplomatic relations and giving diplomatic accreditation to the state of Nicaragua. The only argument against that proposition on the Government side related to money. This did not impress anybody and I doubt if it even impressed the Government side. The argument that money was the only reason for not establishing an embassy was not convincing. We have an ambassador in Washington who also takes in Mexico. If one considers the amount of air fares involved, if we had a non-resident ambassador appointed to Nicaragua for the purpose of the moral protection of the independent sovereign and democratic Republic of Nicaragua, the cost would be absolutely negative. It is important to get some degree of accountability, that we understand why these decisions are really being made, because the economic argument is not at all convincing. The establishment of a proper foreign affairs committee would be a significant move in the direction of allowing the Parliament of this country to understand the motivation behind the sometimes very puzzling decisions made on our behalf in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
I can refer to a couple of other puzzling decisions. We do not have a resident ambassador of the State of Israel and that would be exceedingly important. This does not mean that I speak from an uncritical position of support of the State of Israel. I am a supporter of that state's right to exist. I regard myself as being in a generally friendly position towards that state. It is a part of the world I have visited frequently, not just the state of Israel but also most of the surrounding Arab countries. Like many other people in this country I am seriously concerned about developments in that state, in particular the treatment of the Palestinian Arab population particularly in the West Bank and occupied territories, but it is impossible to have an informed debate if one of the participants have their hands tied behind their backs. It is not widely known that the diplomatic representative of the State of Israel is only permitted to be in this country about one fortnight every month and is operating out of a hotel room. That is not professional diplomacy. Because we have considerable diplomatic skills I hope we in this country will engage in professional diplomacy. It amazes me that we are so delicate about allowing the establishment of an Israeli embassy here, and we do not seem at all bothered about the antics of Colonel Gadaffi. I wonder why? Is this again an economic argument? There seems to be very serious cause for concern that Colonel Gadaffi has been supplying enormous quantities of arms and explosive materials to subversive organisations in this country. We have an ambassador accredited to Tripoli. Is the concern of this Government being made sufficiently strongly felt in Tripoli? It obviously cannot be, because it is making no apparent impression whatever on Colonel Gadaffi.
It is important that we develop a sophisticated and responsible line of approach to a state like Libya. I deplored at the time, the attack by the American Air Force on that country. I also deplored the provocative naval exercises that recently took place. They were deliberately designed and calculated to provoke a military incident and I am glad that they seem largely to have failed in that aim, but at the same time it is very interesting to note that the factory that was apparently a major source of concern to the American administration appears now very clearly to have been designed specifically for the production of the instruments of chemical warfare and not only that, but that members of the European community of nations quite callously and deliberately took part, for purely economic motives, in assisting the production of these deadly weapons. That is something into which we are entitled to inquire.
The countries in which we feel we can afford to have embassies are a very strange choice of countries but I would like to feel that in those countries we can be reassured that we make use of these facilities. A very interesting example crops up in my mind as to the strangeness of our choice of countries for embassies. Although we cannot afford an embassy in Nicaragua where we have a clear coincidence of interest, historically, culturally and ethically with this oppressed people, in that nothing could be a closer parallel to our own history and our own development of sovereignty than the situation in Nicaragua, in Europe we have two embassies within a mile of each other in Italy. Why do we have an embassy in the Vatican and an embassy and an ambassador in Italy?
I do not wish to be offensive but this extraordinary situation, coupled with the fact that the Papal Nuncio is recognised automatically and by virtue of his position as the doyen of the Diplomatic Corps, which is a matter of considerable expense to the Irish people, suggests to me that the removal of Article 44 of the Constitution which recognises the special position of the Roman Catholic Church in this country was a purely cosmetic exercise and meant absolutely nothing whatever because nobody takes seriously — at least I do not take it seriously — the idea that the Vatican is a real state. It has only got about 1,000 citizens — perhaps I might be 100 or 200 out — but is a very small State in terms of numbers of population. Yet if you balance that against the situation in Nicaragua you have a situation where many millions of people are not regarded as being sufficient to allow us to provide an embassy. Yet for that very small notional State — the Vatican — we provide an embassy.
It appears to me that this is a recognition of the admittedly extraordinary and appropriate religious significance of this entity rather than of its existence as a State in terms of the ordinary notions of diplomatic recognition. This concerns me. I wonder if the Department of Foreign Affairs cannot consider these two things in parallel? How is it that we are able to afford two embassies, basically in the same State within a radius of a mile of each other, and none throughout almost an entire sub-continent? That worries me. There is a lack of proportionality there that needs to be investigated.
I welcome the strong position taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs with regard to the position of the South African Government. I echo what Senator Mooney said about the courage of the diplomat at the Paris Conference on Chemical Warfare. I must say that, from reading the newspaper accounts — and that is all I can rely on because there is no disclosure, there is no Foreign Affairs committee — it seems perfectly clear to me that this man risked his career and acted entirely off his own bat. I do not believe for one second that there was an instruction from Iveagh House that he should do so. If I am wrong in this perhaps I can have some information on it. But until I am provided with such solid information, I have to place on the record of this House that I congratulate this gentleman on his courage, particularly in view of the fact that I do not believe that this line of action was indicated to him from Iveagh House. I am perfectly certain it was not. I expect he got his knuckles well rapped for doing it. Within that context, I congratulate him.
I also wonder — because I had my name attached to a resolution suggesting that we break off diplomatic relations with Libya — why do we not break off diplomatic relations with South Africa because we do have them? It has been stated on the record of this House that we do not but according to my Administration Yearbook, which I regard as a kind of political bible, we do because we have an honorary consul in Johannesburg. There may be a reason for this. Perhaps the reason is that in circumstances such as, for example, in which a presumed descendant of one of the 1916 leaders, Major John MacBride, is undergoing trial it gives us some degree of leverage. It took me a long time to work that out. That is the only possible justification I can see. I would like to know why we have this diplomatic representation with South Africa because apparently it exists. In other words, what I would like to tease out is what is the underlying principle behind the granting of accreditation to the various countries because we have quite an absurd and motley collection of the countries to whom we do grant accreditation. It is extremely important that we get some kind of accountability.
There is one other area in which I believe we must have accountability. It is one in which I am sure the Minister will have a particular interest, that is at the United Nations, with the various international organisations represented through United Nations agencies and committees dealing with women's rights. Spokespersons on women's rights do take up positions in these various bodies on behalf of the women of Ireland. Very often we are not made aware of who they are, why they are there or even what they have said. I am sure the Minister of State, as a distinguished member and possibly chairperson of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Women's Rights previously, is aware of this position and will be concerned about it. Again, I revert to this notion of accountability. In respect of that committee, it would be extremely useful to know what positions are being taken up and advanced to international bodies on behalf of the women of Ireland and in the name of the women of Ireland. It would be information that would be extremely useful to that committee and would help to inform their discussions.
I would like to turn to a couple of other matters in which the Minister would have a particular interest. Generally they concern the area of tourism and the impact the proposed integrated plan for the city of Dublin will have in this area. This Government have shown verbally an understanding of the fact that tourism is one of the principal and most significant economic factors in the recovery of the country and that within that area, cultural tourism is the sector that has the greatest capacity for growth. This is one element that must be taken seriously in this integrated plan and I believe that the Minister will agree with me on this.
I should like to place on the record my admiration for the Minister and her sterling performance yesterday morning on the radio when she defended a quite difficult position with great verve and skill, although I am not sure that I was entirely convinced, particularly on the question of the representative nature of the bodies who will be making decisions about the integrated plan. It was trenchantly and appropriately pointed out that with regard to the plan for the city of Dublin, for example, no less than four farmers bodies were officially involved in the process leading to its creation. Of course there are farming interests particularly in north County Dublin, with fruit production, horticulture and so on, but this is the capital city of the country.
There is a disproportionate urban concentration around Dublin on the eastern seaboard and that must be recognised. It is a great shame and pity and it will weaken our approach that there has not been proper consultation with community bodies on the ground; there simply must be. It is important also economically; there is no question of doubt about that. This is one thing that will vitiate important and far-sighted projects such as the Custom House Docks scheme, the fact that there may not be, and in my opinion, has not been, anything like sufficient consultation with the deprived communities among whom these things are going to be located. If it is going to be an integrated plan it must be integrated not just economically but also socially and in terms of the infrastructure.
It is important to stress the cultural aspect of the path towards economic recovery. It does cause me some concern to learn that Dublin is going to be the cultural capital of Europe in 1991. It does not mean that I do not welcome it but I am little bit worried by the kind of statements I hear, such as that there will be plenty of money to spend in 1991. That money must be spent, starting now. We just about got away, by the skin of our teeth, with the Dublin Millennium. It was a miracle that it was not a disaster.
I would, however, like to place on the record of this House my gratitude and admiration for the Dublin City Manager, Mr. Feely, who I think has been rather begrudgingly treated in the coverage of the Millennium because, after all, it was his wheeze, so to speak, and it did have an impact on the city. I think he should be congratulated. If we are not going to be mean spirited about it, I think the part he played was very significant and it is important that persons like myself who frequently criticise civil servants and personnel in local authorities, when I think it is necessary to criticise them, should place on the record some degree of congratulation. However we should take warning from it.
The Millennium preparations were only getting under way half way through the Millennium Year, and the same is going to happen, I am afraid, with regard to this notion of Dublin being the cultural capital of Europe in 1991. I would like some firm indication that something is going to be done. I would like to invite the Minister, for example, to travel to Glasgow which I understand is going to have this honour sooner than we are. It is a city which had a very bad reputation but it learned how to make use of whatever resources it had. I would hope that we might learn from the city of Glasgow.
I mentioned earlier that there had been some verbal indications that the significance of cultural tourism was being recognised. In my experience, and I do quite a lot of work in this area, they are very largely verbal. There has been virtually no follow up in terms of hard cash. I know it is very vulgar in a national Parliament to talk about hard cash, and that political people, particularly Ministers, are very sensitive. I would not want to upset anybody by mentioning money, and the only reason I do it is that in every area of involvement in public life I continually come up against the little red line of cash.
I could, of course, mention a number of things which could be done. In 1991 Dublin will be the cultural capital of Europe — splendid. In 1991 it is our intention to have established the first James Joyce Cultural Centre in this city. That may sound parochial but Joyce is a word to conjure with, a name to conjure with internationally. I have no doubt the Government are well aware of this. Yet, what has been done to honour Joyce? Virtually nothing, despite the fact that this is an enormous asset for the country. I think it is a pity that all we could squeeze ourselves to do in the year of Joyce's centenary was to rename a bridge in Chapelizod. We renamed something else in honour of Seán O'Casoy, and we renamed a block of flats after Brendan Behan. That was very nice of us but let us have some real investment and in particular, just as one small indicator, I would like something done with regard to the Joyce Cultural Centre.
This building that was about to be demolished by Dublin Corporation contains superb 18th century plaster work by some of the best stuccoers in Dublin. We managed to rescue it and reroofed it. We got a group of young international volunteers to come in and clear it out and we are well into the second stage of the recuperation of the building. It is our intention by 1991, and this was a coincidence, to have it opened to the public not just as a cultural centre but as a show case for everything that is best not only in Dublin but in Irish manufacture, such as Waterford Glass chandeliers and Donegal carpets, so that when people come they will see the excellence of which this country is capable.
We applied for funding, we applied for national lottery funding, we applied for funding from the European Community and we applied for cultural grants from Europe but what do we find? Always, incessantly, without exception, we are stymied by the Department of Finance and by the Office of Public Works who gobble up all the grants. There is virtually no room left or allowed by the public agencies for the kind of initiative we have shown in this area. I am not trying to take this entirely on my own shoulders and prop myself up because I am moving into the background. I am only taking this opportunity today.
We have an excellent young administrator, Des Gunning, working there virtually unpaid, trying to surmount all these difficulties. We have received a tremendous amount of support internationally, but the one thing we do not get is a little injection of hard cash, even through the lottery. I strongly hope and urge that this will change and that some notice will be taken of the fact that in 1991 one of the things people will ask is: how are you honouring your writers?
We have three things in this country, architecture, literature and music. Literature and architecture are the two leaders, they would be the brand leaders if we were in a supermarket, but we really have not done very much. We have done a thousand times more to encourage angling for a thousand times less return in terms of tourism. Why do we not wake up? I could go on ad nauseam, I am afraid, about this because I think it is very important.
I am only briefly going to touch on the forthcoming budget because I am very hopeful that something may happen here. I would like to see a recognition at the level of Government decision of the importance, as an asset, of the 18th century architecture of the inner city of Dublin, a recognition of the fact that it is actually threatened and that it is an asset. Perhaps I can put into context for the House why I think this is important and why we should recognise it. I remember a number of years ago when I was lecturing in Beirut I wanted to go and visit some other countries. Eventually, by a series of accidents, I got held up in Jordan. There were some difficulties about papers but they treated me very kindly and arranged for me to be taken out by an official with the Ministry of Tourism to a marvellous Roman city called Jerash.
I went there with this guide from the Ministry of Tourism. I complimented him and said the place was simply wonderful. It was an astonishing city, and reminded me of New York. There were huge Corinthian pillars stretching up, dwarfing the human scale. I said this was absolutely marvellous and that I had no idea there were such places there. I apologised for my ignorance and said I certainly did not realise that they had such a marvellous programme of architectural archaeological restoration. He said: "We are not interested in that, that is not Arab, that is Greek or Roman." I asked: "Why on earth are you doing this wonderful work?" and he replied: "Jordan, she poor country, she have no coal, she have no oil, she have no steel, but they dirty things. You dig from the ground, they exhaust, they gone, they leave dirt, they leave no jobs, they leave no money. But the old buildings, we do not like them but the Americans like them, the French like them, the British like them and apparently you, the Irish, like them and they stay. They not exhaust, they stay, they clean, they not dirty and they continue to give money." I said: "I wish to God you would come back to my country and bring this wonderful Oriental wisdom with you" because here we have the original cauldron, magic cauldron, that continues to generate resources from the community without being depleted, but we have not recognised that.
I acknowledge, of course, that there was some cultural difficulty when we were a little bit more ignorant, a little bit less secure about ourselves and a little bit less mature and a number of our prominent people, including former Ministers of various parties, I will not specify them, felt that this inheritance of what they called the belted earls was something we could well do without and that it was an expression of a kind of colonial oppressive régime and so on, which is an immature view. Whatever about the lifestyle of the people who lived in the 18th century, they are gone, they are dead, and well and truly rotten. What we are left with is the capacity of the Irish craftsmen, stuccoers, ordinary workmen, carpenters, people involved in wood turning and so on to produce articles of the highest European excellence. It is up to us to protect them. They are not being protected and I am sure the Minister is aware of this. I look forward, and I believe it is possible, that the Minister for Finance will include provisions to protect these buildings.
I will only mention this very briefly because I have made submissions to both the previous Minister, Deputy MacSharry, the present Minister, Deputy Reynolds, and the Department of Finance indicating that there are anomalies in the legislation that are constantly being promoted by the Government to suggest that the inner city is the subject of major tax incentives. That is incorrect and the Department of Finance have accepted that my evaluation of the tax law is, in fact, correct and that the retention of 18th century buildings in this area is actually militated against by a reading of section 23 and section 44 of the Finance Act. Not only is no incentive provided but the tax laws actually constitute a major disincentive to restoration. I look forward to that being rectified in the coming budget, and I sincerely hope that it will be, because it will not only make a more beautiful city for all of us but it will also provide an important financial resource for the citizens, not just of the city but also of the country.
I would like to mention a few other matters that arise under the heading of different departments. I would like to turn my attention to the Department of Health, and express some degree of concern in certain areas here. I will start by indicating a rather small area but I think it is an important one in the human context. I am afraid I am not always able to read all the reports from the Dáil, interesting though they are, but there was a debate during the year which highlighted the problems of people seeking cataract operations, particularly elderly people living alone in country areas, and the very considerable delays being experienced in getting access to this treatment. I mention this because the Minister of State Deputy Leyden, who took that debate seemed to echo the concern of the Deputy who raised the question. I hope that this matter will be looked into by the Department of Health and that some amelioration of the position will be found during the coming year.
I am also concerned about the whole question of AIDS. I am not going to take a very long time to talk about this because I am very glad to say that we did, as the Minister I am sure knows, have a wide-ranging, informed and serious debate on the subject of AIDS in this House at the instigation principally of the Independent Members but it was one in which all sections of the House joined in a most responsible fashion. I continue to have concern in this area as, among other things, a member of the board of the AIDS fund.
It is noticeable that from time to time pressures are brought from the general health areas, the Department of Health or the Eastern Health Board, to have funding made available through voluntary organisations and so on, but such moneys would be much more appropriately made available directly through the Department of Health, the Eastern Health Board or whatever health board are responsible. Through the next year I will be looking very closely at the way in which moneys are allocated and the way in which pressures are brought to bear on voluntary bodies to make up deficiencies that should be made up by the health board or the Department of Health.
In this context I would like to say that I am very glad that various voluntary agencies resisted pressure on them to make up certain funds in a number of areas and that, for example, the extremely valuable work done in University College, Dublin by Professor Irene Hillery and the virus reference laboratory has been recognised and that after an unconscionable delay and miserably protracted negotiations it appears now that this important work will be properly funded. This kind of delay and pettifogging negotiations should not be entered into because I would make the point that voluntary organisations need to supply the real and inescapable deficiencies of Outreach in this area and not to be left with the responsibility of attempting to make major capital funding available to what should be State financed enterprises. I will leave that aside because, as I say, we have had a considerable debate on it.
There is another area, however, that I really believe needs to be highlighted, and that is the question of the comparatively small number, in terms of the general population of haemophiliacs who, having been treated with Factor 8 blood products, have now been discovered to be in the position of being HIV positive. I think this is a very special situation and I say that being very careful not to commit the outrage that I am sorry to say certain political and religious leaders have of drawing distinctions between innocent HIV positive people and those who on the other hand are apparently guilty. I do not think there is any question of innocence or guilt but the haemophiliacs are a very specific problem. I would also like to say — I am sure the Minister will agree with me and I hope the Department of Health officials will also be sensitised to this — that the language in which this subject is approached should be one of delicacy. The phrase that is now very movingly adopted by people who are HIV positive themselves or who indeed have AIDS is not sufferers or victims or infected or anything like that, it is "People living with AIDS".
